TexasCHLforum.com

Jim,

I agree about Gov. perry and TTC being his biggest mistake. It almost did cost him office once, and set the stage for the upcoming election against Kay. While I agree on needing better highways in Texas, and I like the idea of the TTC, the way he went about it was so wrong I would fight it too.

On the argument about the TOBA, I have to say I voted against it. It has very little to do with access and all to do with ownership. If I buy a plot of land now, they would want to write the deed from the "vegetation line" back. In case of floods, the vegetation line changes. In some of the cases after Ike, the beach water line did not move, but the vegetation line did. Some people could not rebuild their houses, and there were a couple that the house only needed small repairs. I am a firm believer that all deeds should be for a fixed plot of land. Movable boundaries like water or vegetation lines should never be allowed in a deed. TOBA seems to me like a way to take property without compensation, at least as it was just applied. It seems wrong to me.

Zee,

Just for technical accuracy, the amendment would have done nothing at all to stop Perry from taking land for TTC. Many think like that, but that would still have been for a public purpose and allowable. It was specifically written in response to the New London SCOTUS case. It will stop a city from condemning land to give to someone to develop a shopping center or something like that. Combined with the law on appraising property as residential if it is being used that way, I see it as better support for property owners deciding on the best use for their property.

Purplehood wrote:With the option of "the military should buy the buffer zone", any existing community would have to be physically displaced. Do you want to be the victim of some sort of eminent domain act?

The real question is who should buy the buffer zone, the local community or the federal government. Either way, the property owners are subject to getting the "market value" of the land through eminent domain procedures and parts of the community may be subject to being displaced.

The way I see it, the advantage of the military doing it is that they seem to have a little more respect from the community and the land in the buffer zone would stay there.

The advantage of the city buying the zone is that the land would be used by the city for other purposes. For example, San Antonio has a small city park (Eisenhower Park) outside one of the gates to Camp Bullis. If they bought the land, this park could be expanded and city residents could get some use out of it while the military still gets its protected buffer zone.

I, personally, am of mixed thoughts on this. As a US citizen, I see the need for a strong military with proper training sites. This means I see the need for the buffer zones. I would support the Army BUYING the land for the zone. At the same time, as someone who no longer lives in San Antonio, I can argue that the city is trying to benefit from the zone by protecting their economy. This means I would rather see the city use its money and not have my tax dollars used to protect the San Antonio economy.

And I also noted that the amendment is permissive and not mandatory. It means San Antonio (and other cities where this will come up) may decide to buy the zone and they may decide not to. There is something to be said for the local decision option.

Lasertex hit on part of the problem, with the new development affecting Camp Bullis. One of the other problems they are citing is that the development is impacting the endangered species in the area. As the development destroys nesting areas for the golden cheeked warbler, the birds move onto Camp Bullis. As they are spotted on the base, those areas now become off limits for training.

I have my preference for dealing with idiots who build next to a military base and then complain about the noise. I also have my priorities for which is more important, birds or military training. But the courts seem to feel the opposite to me.

So, in order to keep Ft. Sam Houston and Lackland AFB as viable training bases, San Antonio is trying to cut down on development in the area. Since developers were smart and filed plans years ago, they have vested rights to develop and the only way the city can stop them is to buy the land. I think the DoD could buy the land, but they might decide to close the bases and move the training instead. So, San Antonio is looking for ways to keep what they see as a strong eceonomic generator, and possibly improve relations with the military for future expansion.